Going the Distance

Today's singles matches at the Australian Open were decided by which player could outlast the other, as all three matches went to a deciding set. The real highlight of today, in my opinion, was the men's semifinal featuring the last two players from the bottom half of the draw: David Nalbandian vs. Marcos Baghdatis.

Bagdatis and Nalbandian came out for their semifinal match attired in similar outfits: white shirt with orange trim, black shorts, hair in a ponytail, and a white headband. When the two players began to battle it seemed as though there was not much to separate the two of them. Both had excellent two-handed backhands and neither would willingly surrender a point. As the match progressed, there was a marked decrease in Nalbandian's serve speed, and he seemed to be using his serve merely to start the point rather than to enforce himself on the point. Still, Nalbandian won the first set. The Argentinian then wrested the second set away from the Cypriot, whose concentration while serving for the set was broken by Australia Day's fireworks in the sky above Rod Laver Arena.

While the quality of Nalbandian's serve wavered, his groundstrokes retained their sting and gave Baghdatis fits on his own serve. Still, Baghdatis managed to secure breaks on Nalbandian's serve in the third and fourth sets, pushing the match to a deciding fifth.

With both players running on fumes, Nalbandian tried to pull away from his opponent and led the set at 4-2 before Baghdatis began breaking down the Argentinian's serve again. The crowd (particularly the Greek Australians who had come out to support Baghdatis) had been cheering throughout the match, but they went wild as Baghdatis broke Nalbandian's serve at love. He was to serve for the match.

It had been a dramatic match up to that point; Baghdatis had been playing from behind during the whole match and had only just gotten his nose in front. The Australian weather decided to show its twisted sense of humor and left viewers and players in suspense: at 5-4, 15-all, it began to rain. Nobody had bothered to consider the possibility of rain after a hot and humid day, and the roof was partially open. Play was halted for twenty minutes while the roof was drawn closed and the court was dried manually with towels.

Could Nalbandian again wrest the momentum from Baghdatis with this interruption? There would be no such mistake this time, though Baghdatis had to win the match twice. At 40-30 Baghdatis played a ball deep down the line on Nalbandian's forehand side for a seeming winner, but chair umpire Andreas Egli overruled it and said it had gone long. The computer-assisted replay of the point, however, showed that the ball had hit the back of the line. Nalbandian then committed an unforced error and gave another match point to his opponent. Baghdatis closed the match out with an ace down the T and fell to his knees. The unseeded 20-year-old, a former junior number one, had beaten the #2 seed Andy Roddick, the #7 seed Ivan Ljubicic, and the #4 seed David Nalbandian. He had secured himself a place in the final.

Baghdatis, a first-time Grand Slam finalist, will play the winner of the semifinal between Roger Federer and Nicolas Kiefer. The German Kiefer will fight for a first-time berth in a Grand Slam final. Federer has never yet lost a Slam final.

***

AGAIN: In one of the other singles matches today, Maria Sharapova crashed out of the Australian Open in the semifinal for the second year in a row. This time, she was beaten by Justine Henin-Hardenne. Though Sharapova took an early lead winning the first set, she faltered and allowed Henin-Hardenne back into the match. The Belgian Henin-Hardenne prevailed over the Russian 4-6,6-1,6-4.

From the Sydney Morning Herald:

A disappointed Sharapova also berated the media for focusing on issues such as her grunting and fashion rather than tennis.

"Take your note pads, take your pencils down, take your grunt-o-meters down, the fashion police, put everything away and just watch the match � I seriously think the quality of the match today was great."

Upon learning that the electronic "hawkeye" had revealed that two important calls had incorrectly gone against her in the final set, the Russian could not conceal her disappointment.

"That was wide? That's great, I mean, what can I say," she said of an Henin-Hardenne ball that was wrongly called in. "I thought that was a pretty important point in the match. But I mean, I'm not going to argue about that shot. I'm not going to make excuse about that."

Yuri Sharapov's behavior during the match also overshadowed the loss; the Russian's father had been making hand signals and yelling out to Sharapova throughout her past matches, and at one point a scream from his vicinity had distracted Henin-Hardenne as she was about to serve.

Henin-Hardenne will be facing Frenchwoman Amelie Mauresmo in the final. Mauresmo progressed to the final when her opponent Kim Clijsters retired from their match in the third set after twisting her ankle.

From Reuters.co.uk:

For the Belgian it was a slice of cruel luck, but one which gives Mauresmo a chance to win her first grand slam.

"It's very strange," third seed Mauresmo said in a courtside interview. "We had such a great battle till she twisted the ankle.

"It's a little bit of an unfinished match. I hope she gets better and it's not too bad but that's the way it is."

[...]

Clijsters has been plagued by injuries since she lost the 2004 Australian Open final to Henin-Hardenne but thought her luck had taken a turn for the better when she won last year's U.S. Open.

But she hurt her back and hip during a warm-up event in Sydney earlier this month and failed to regain full fitness during the championship.

"I'm not the kind of player who is going to quit for nothing," Clijsters told a news conference.

"I really felt like I was ready from the first ball. I think I played a lot better, too. That's what makes this even more frustrating."

Clijsters ascended to the world #1 ranking on Monday and made the semifinal by beating Martina Hingis in their quarterfinal match. (Hingis is still at the Australian Open, having just made the semifinal of the mixed doubles event with partner Mahesh Bhupathi.)

Mauresmo has once been a finalist at the Australian Open, losing to Hingis in 1999. Henin-Hardenne won the tournament in 2004.

***

JUSTIN, YOU JINX! In what may be an extension of the Sports Illustrated cover curse, SI contributor Justin Gimelstob has noted a disturbing pattern of events linked to his blog. In his own words:

I've been taking a lot of heat regarding my predictions, and rightfully so. Andy Roddick was the first guy in the locker room to call me out on my "Six young players to watch" debacle, as five of my picks crashed out in the first round. Then, to add further fuel to the jinx theory, Aussie native son Lleyton Hewitt was bounced in the second round by Juan Ignacio Chela after I predicted his safe passage to the later rounds of the tournament.

The icing on the cake was James Blake losing on Thursday night to Tommy Robredo. I gave James props in this column at last fall's U.S. Open. Robredo is a great player, but Blake had dominated him 3-0 head-to-head -- until Friday, when the added weight of my prognostication proved too much to contend with.

[...]

Since many of my loyal readers are well aware that I already alienated Lindsay Davenport last fall with my, uh, controversial first column, I don't have to worry about her fearing or even being aware of the jinx. That leaves only one player who remains in jeopardy: Roger Federer.

The good news for him is that certain things aren't subject to cosmic influences. Once in awhile, individuals come along in their particular profession or walk of life and have that rare combination of physical talent, emotional balance and desire to fulfill their potential. Nothing, not even the Gimel's Blog jinx, can affect that inevitable outcome.

So next weekend, when both Davenport and Federer are basking in their Grand Slam glory, the Gimel's Blog jinx will be officially extinguished. Hopefully then the ridicule with [sic] cease!

Since that blog post, the Gimel's Blog curse has struck again and again with Ivan Ljubicic, Lindsay Davenport, and most recently Kim Clijsters bouncing out of the tournament. You know who may be next.

***

BEST OUT OF FIVE: I think this Australian Open has been a study in why best-of-five matches should still be played at the Grand Slam tournaments. I don't see how some tennis journalists can even suggest (repeatedly in their weekly columns) reducing Grand Slam matches to the best-of-three format. I understand it will please television broadcasters since they can time when a match starts and ends more precisely with three-setters and set advertising rates accordingly, and people supposedly won't lose interest and tune off during shorter matches. However, tennis shouldn't be all about what can attract and keep ratings.

Five-setters showcase both players' strengths and weaknesses and allow dramatic comebacks that would not be possible in best-of-three matches. Most times a five-set match resembles theater in all its ups and downs. In my recent memory I have enjoyed five-set matches the most: both players wrestling with each other and with themselves--figuratively, of course. Five setters are like churning milk for butter: the cream rises to the top.

posted by Noelle De Guzman @ 10:37 PM